INTRODUCTION AND EARLY ACCOUNT OF ILLEGITIMACY
Illegitimacy always had its share of wicked attentions from society and the law. It has its history going back to the time when the dark sides of feudal-religious-centralism reigned over human rights principles. In ancient Rome, to bolster the institution of feudalism, the Precarium exercised control over marriages and inheritance. The requirement of conubium (legal marriage) prohibited relationships between Roman citizens and non-citizens, freemen and slaves. Such a union was not treated as conubium but as contubernium (invalid marriage). Accordingly, marrying below one’s rank attracted inequality in honour or dignity, and the children of such disparagium (misalliance) did not succeed to the estate under a Feudal lord. Those unions were termed as “morganatic marriages”, which were otherwise canonically valid. Those who were born into uncanonical unions were completely excluded from holdings, for Romans believed that a man’s status is unparalleled in a society. However, the thrust of this discrimination was to create an economically viable policy in favour of feudal lords- “[t]he status of illegitimacy was a source of revenue to the Lord of the Estate. Not being an actual heir or expectant of a tenant, he was merely tolerated as a sojourner like a foreigner and could be made to pay tax for the privilege of remaining ther[e]”1
In his law, Constantine had prohibited senators, perfectissimi (the highest rank of equestrians), leading members of municipal councils (duumviri and quinqueviri), and those who hold provincial priesthoods from marrying lowborn or disreputable women and from conferring any benefits on the offspring born to them during their lifetime or in their will. Those who tried to provide such children were penalised by loss of citizenship and were reduced to the status of peregrine (non-citizen foreigner) and by tarnishing them with legal infamy, even if they had previously received permission from the emperor (imperial rescript) to recognise such children. Constantine’s law was mitigated in by Valentinian I and Valens, but their law was overturned by Theodosius I. Later, Theodosius II, who was the emperor of the East, instituted a more generous law based on that of Valentinian I and Valens, which stated that, in the absence of legitimate heirs, a man could leave up to one-fourth of his property to his natural children and their mother, and one-twelfth if there were other legitimate children. He extended the inheritance right even to children born of void marriages, if the parties had intended to marry and were of equal honour. Surprisingly in these codes, these children were referred as ‘naturalis’ instead of ‘illegitimate or ‘spurii’2.Justinian subsequently, in his Novellae, declared that unions of unequal status were valid and that children born of them were legitimate and able to succeed to their father, even if there were other children from a previous marriage. However, this liberal attitude was limited to monogamous relationships3.
Canon law, in the beginning, was not much concerned about the legitimacy of births. In the course of time, patriarchates4 and bishoprics, started issuing decrees and regulatory provisions for the clergy and laymen within their particular jurisdictions5. When the jurisdiction of deciding inheritance was passed on to them, the Ecclesiastical courts decided the right on the basis of ‘regular marriages’. For the ease of it, they classified the unions as legitimate or illicit. The standards of immorality were used to evaluate the validity of unions. Any form of sexual connection was regarded as immoral, which was not consented by the church; the offspring were classified as spurious illegitimates or natural illegitimates, depending on the intensity of sexual sins committed by the parents. The former were considered as incorrigibles and later as innocents, and hence eligible for legitimation6. They promulgated a system of illegitimacy by marginalising the children born out of wedlock to pay for their parents’ acts, and denied them social and legal protection.
The illegitimate’s position under common law was much graver. Under common law, an illegitimate child was “filius nullius” (child of no one) or “filius populi” (child of everyone), as the responsibility for care and protection was assigned to neither biological parent. He was a stranger to both law and society, with no blood relation of his own7. He was born without a home and a name, as a piece of pity and derision, and thus became a permanent object of blasphemy. Common law, until the beginning of the twentieth century, was reluctant to legitimise the birth of the child, even with the subsequent marriage of his parents.
THE INDIAN CONTEXT
In India, the pre-Vedic and Vedic societies hardly differentiated children on the basis of their birth. It is interesting to note that the majority of the rishis (ancient lawgivers), who were glorified for their significant contributions to early Vedic culture, had unconventional births. The great proponent of Vedic philosophy, Ved–Vyasa, was born to Parashara and Sathyavathi– an unwedded fisherwoman, by virtue of niyoga8. The story of Pandavas’ (sons of Pandu) birth, in which Kunti– their mother, was encouraged by her incapable husband, Pandu, to use the boon of niyoga, to conceive from three different partners, gives an insight that the births outside marriage were never regarded as a taboo in ancient Vedic society. Early societies had not shown any difference to such children and were treated as legitimate; they had no stigma and enjoyed the same privileges of sons begotten by the husband9. “[T]he Epic period expressly recognises marriages of love contracted otherwise than with the consent of parents. The tendency of the Epic period seems to have been to confer the status of marriage on all permanent unions; howsoever it was effectuated, but permanent in the intentions of the parties. In fact, even irregular unions were declared valid. Early Hindu law really made no mention of the illegitimacy of chil[d].10”
The narratives under the Dharmasutrakaras and the Dharmasastrakaras give insights into the reasons and social situations that influenced the emergence of ‘secondary sons’. Sex relations between man and woman were not based on strict norms and the child born to a woman either belonged to her father if she was unmarried or to her husband if she was married. The child, therefore, was placed under the protection of either his maternal family or the family into which he was adopted and always belonged to the family to which his mother belonged. The reasons for the classification of children as secondary sons were the mutual and continuous interaction of Aryan and non-Aryan races at the time. It continued even after the advent of the Rigvedic culture. “[T]he practice of having various types of sons was so much in vogue that the Dharmasutrakaras and the Dharmasastrakaras could not afford to ignore their presence. Therefore, elaborate rules have been embodied in Dharmasutras and Dharmasastras. The various types of sons were, in fact, assimilated into the family, thereby finding a respectable place in society by virtue of their relationship to the family. It is interesting to note that in the absence of their being recognised as secondary sons, they would have been considered illegitimate or bastard, which would have been a great social stigma on the[m]”.11
Even in the most prominent moral code of the time, Manu Smriti, which is believed to have been written around 1200BC, with twelve chapters that decipher the Hindu way of life and practices for systemising family and social life, there are references to niyoga. According to Sir Henry Maine, the ancient Aryan family was governed by patriarchal despotism, like that in early Roman paterfamilias12. The family members were related to each other by agnatic, but not cognatic ties. The agnatic relationship exists between persons who trace a connection by civil descent from a common male ancestor. The basis of the agnatic relationship is not the marriage of the mother and father, but the extent of the paterfamilias’s paternal power (patria potestas). Thus, all who are under the patria potestas of the paterfamilias are agnostically connected.
The tendency to tie up family property to the blood-son influenced the Aryan logic of classifying marriages and restricting the practices of niyoga. Medhathi, in his commentary on Manu, gives an account of Manu’s classification of children by birth. It is pertinent to note that, even upon the disapproval of Manu, the practice of niyoga was not abolished altogether. The society was open to sanctioning a wife or widow for bearing a child by her husband’s brother or another sapinda. Manu also discussed the right of aurasa (a son born in wedlock) after his wife gave birth to a son by niyoga (born outside wedlock).13
When colonisation of India began, the English legal system exerted a strong influence on the codification of Hindu law. The effort to codify Hindu law was initiated in the latter half of the 18th century to facilitate the administration of social and cultural practices in India. However, it was not easy as the British rulers were baffled at the vast diversity and complexity of Indian society. Initially, the conditions were not so viable to transfer the English attitude towards illegitimate children to India. The rules regarding marriage were loosely followed; practices such as Maitri Karar and concubinage were commonly accepted. In almost all social divisions, the natural relationship between the mother and child was fully established and revered. For this reason alone, the categorisation of illegitimate as filius nullius never worked on Indian soil.
When the codification began, the assumption was drawn from the fact that, like the English marriage laws were the excerpts of Biblical doctrines and canonical laws, all the personal laws of various communities would find their legitimacy from their religious sources14. To quote Duncan Derrett: “Hastings and his colleagues were … predisposed to see the division of topics of law in terms of the contemporary English division…”. William Jones deciphered Manu Smriti, which later became one of the most preferred texts of the British on Hindu culture and completely disregarded the impact of Vedic literature on social norms. Colebrook also attempted to compile Hindu laws and produced translations of the Mitakshara and the Dayabhaga. Subsequently, the discourse on the interpretations of shastric law published by English authors was preferred over the genuine Sanskrit Shastric works. Thus, the new law codes administered by the British courts began to modify the original customary practices, even when British law provided for their protection. “Since then custom has been forced to struggle against the Anglo- shastric law brought into existence at the behest of the British, which was assumed to be the personal law of Hindus”15. The newly generated codes were much more rigid than those that previously existed, the result of an intention to provide uniform shastric law that was easy to administer to the Indian public.
As a consequence, the canonical morality on illegitimacy, underpinned by the Manusmriti, gradually found its place in early Hindu codes.
IMPRINTING OF ILLEGITIMACY THROUGH STATUTES IN MODERN INDIA
At present, the legitimacy of birth and status of the child in India are governed under various personal laws and the two Civil codes. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955, deals with the legitimacy of the Children. Clause (1) of the provision has optimised the status of legitimacy for children born to void and voidable marriages, as specified under sections 11 and 12 of the HMA16. However, these provisions are silent about the status and rights of children born outside marriages and to unconventional unions, which are broadly mentioned under section 17 of the Act. Similarly, under section 21 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, legitimacy is conferred only to children born inside a lawful wedlock, with an exception under two instances, either by a “[s]ubsequent marriage, that was contracted in good faith and with the full belief of the parties that the former husband or wife was dead, or when a marriage is annulled on the ground of insanity[y]”17. In Muslim law, a child is legitimate only if he is begotten by a lawfully wedded wife or slave; any other form of birth is a ‘Zina,’ which means furtive and therefore illegitimate. Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act follows the legal maxim “Pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant”, which means that a subsisting marriage between the man and woman is the conclusive proof of the legitimacy of the child. The Special Marriage Act also confers legitimacy to children born to valid, void and voidable marriages18.
Hence, both under the civil and personal law, the presumption of legitimacy can be attracted only with proof of some form of marriage existing between the parents of the child, be it valid, void or voidable. It therefore excludes all other kinds of births consummated outside a legal marriage from acquiring the status of legitimacy.
THE STIGMA OF ILLEGITIMACY
Statutes are the torchbearers, sometimes determining, and at other times reflecting, the progressive attitude of a society. The major setback of ‘illegitimacy’ laws in India is that it has left no room for revoking the subject subsequently upon a change in circumstances other than adoption19. Ironically, even the natural (biological) parents have to adopt their natural born for conferring him a legitimate legal status. Therefore, illegitimacy creates a permanent derogation of status for children of unconventional births and thereby discriminates against them throughout their lives. Legitimating the birth has a limited scope, even under the Special Marriage Act20.
Legitimacy doctrines consider and evaluate the rights of children born to unconventional unions only when the matter is adjudicated before a court of law for the determination of his guardianship, inheritance, or succession rights. Interestingly, a claim of such nature can be addressed only after a declaration has been obtained on the ‘legitimacy statuses’ of the disputed birth. This has not only violated the best interest theory perpetuated under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but also violates the dignity and privacy of women, protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and as envisaged under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The Constitution of India, under Article 15(1), clearly forbids discrimination on the basis of sex/gender. The present laws on legitimacy are therefore unconstitutional and violate the mandate under Articles 14, 15(1), and 21 of the Indian Constitution. It not only places the dignity of women and their motherhood under the realms of immorality but also defames children from the moment of their conception.
The existing statutes conveniently disregard the ‘right to identity’ of the child and his reputation. This results in the creation of an unfathomable positioning of the child born outside wedlock in society. The legal vacuum forces him to derive his legal and social status from an unknown male figure who merely aided his birth. The outcome of which is a strenuous legal battle for acquiring the title of the illegitimate progeny of an unknown preparator, who had not contributed to his well-being, and furthermore denied him a legitimate opportunity to acquire his rights as a citizen of the country in which he was born. The children therefore suffer from various mistreatments; socially, legally and psychologically. According to Geraldine Van Bueren, “One of the most enduring forms of unequal treatment is discrimination between marital and non-marital children, which cannot be justified on physiological or psychological grounds and therefore lacks any objective justification“21.
The legal attitude towards illegitimacy has thus created an ‘inequality’ before the law by discriminating against children on the basis of their birth, which is against the constitutional protection guaranteed under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The inequalities subsist broadly in the areas like inheritance of surname, family name, nationality and citizenship rights of children born to unconventional unions or outside wedlock, unequal preference of father over mother for conferring the child the status of legitimacy, as the identity of the father is exclusively considered for conferring legitimacy status to the children when mother bears the social and legal responsibility of bringing up the child born outside wedlock, violate the celebrated rights under Article 14, 15 and 21 of Indian constitution.
THE IDENTITY CRUSADE
There were many international conventions and declarations adopted during the early half of the twentieth century to protect children and enforce their rights. The Geneva Declaration, 1924, containing five principles, emphasised the necessity of providing means for the physical and spiritual development of the Child. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, under Article 25(2), provided that “mother and children are entitled to special care and assistance”. The ICCPR (1956) also provides for the protection of the rights of the child against any form of discrimination. However, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in November 1989, was the first international human rights instrument to contain a comprehensive text on children’s rights. Article 8 of the convention mandates the preservation of the Identity of children, including their nationality, name, and family relations, without unlawful interference, and obligates member states to incorporate these principles into their domestic laws. In addition to this, the Member States are required to help children regain any aspect of their identity that has been taken away from them illegally. 22
Article 8 has been complemented with the principle of ‘best interest’, as enumerated under Article 3 of the convention, where it states that, whenever the child is presented before a private or public authority or welfare institution, his best interest shall be the primary concern23.
The Constitution of India has not explicitly mentioned personal identity as a fundamental right. However, a purposive interpretation24 of Article 14, read with Article 21 of the Constitution, is wide enough to cover the identity rights of children affected by such irrational and unreasonable classification. Indian judiciary, although it has incorporated the ‘best interest theory’ in its approaches towards protecting the children and their rights under various articles, the right to identity of children born outside wedlock has never been depicted as a fundamental right issue before it. Accordingly, it has left no scope for the protection of the identity of the person born in similar circumstances and his right to choose ‘how to appear and to be represented’ in society.
The infamous legal tussle took place at the Delhi High Court in ‘Shri Rohit Shekhar vs Shri Naryan Dutt Tiwari &Anr.’25 had for the first time referred to the child born outside the wedlock( petitioner) as ‘natural- born’, omitting the usual terminology of ‘illegitimate’.
The case was brought before the court by the appellant Rohit Shekhar, who stated that Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act is intended to protect the best interests of the child by conferring legitimacy not otherwise. Although the court was, prima facie, adjudicating on the admissibility of a DNA test to prove paternity, it made certain relevant observations on ‘illegitimacy’ status issues in this case.
The Hon’ble court observed that “The development of statute law through enactment of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the Family Courts Act, 1984, read together with a child’s right to know about her or his natural parentage has added a new dimension where the concept of paternity or a claim, cannot be ousted by Section 112 and concerns of legitimacy, underlying it….This provision of law is aimed at protecting a child from the scurrilous accusation of his bastardy and, at the same time, insulating a woman from the ignominy of accusation of her chastity and infidelity through the avenue of the legitimacy of her child. The accuracy of a DNA test was not even imagined at the time when the law was formulated; the prevailing wisdom was that only the mother could vouch for who the father of her child was. Section 112 provides that if a child is born during the continuance of a valid marriage, that fact alone shall be conclusive proof of his legitimacy. The Hon’ble High Court, while reinstating the observation of the learned single judge had quoted that “the protective cocoon of legitimacy, in such case, should not entomb the child’s aspiration to learn the truth of her or his paternity”26.
The case can be considered unique, as the plaintiff initiated the suit challenging provisions that created an unfair ‘status of illegitimacy’ for him. [T]he Prayers in the Plaint are that a Decree for Declaration be passed, declaring the Plaintiff as the natural born son of the Appellant which the Appellant should acknowledge. The Plaint is accompanied by an application praying that by an ad interim order the Appellant may be directed to submit himself for a DNA tes[t]……27.Surprisingly, the judiciary, after while has never considered the irrationality and unreasonableness in addressing the child outside wedlock as ‘illegitimate’ even when it was addressing their legitimate rights.
In 2016, the Delhi High Court, while considering the dispute regarding issuing of passports to ‘fatherless children’, gave a conclusive remark on the issue by holding that the ‘mother’s name alone is sufficient in certain cases where she is a single parent’. The court observed that there is no legal requirement for insisting upon the father’s name and directed the authorities to amend the application forms to accommodate the specified changes28. A similar judgment was rendered by the Madras High Court, back in 2014, directing the Ministry of External Affairs to upgrade the Passport Manual to add additional columns for filling the names of step-parents, adoptive parents, etc., in cases where it reports the absence of the biological father29.
Although, Judiciary has recognised in number of instances the growing number of unconventional births happening in India due to situations varying from personal choices to increase in number of unwed-underage mothers, sex workers, surrogate mothers, rape survivors, children abandoned by father and born through IVF technologies, the attention was more drawn towards the privacy rights of women and the custody and guardianship rights of children, than on their status issues. Hence, it has completely overlooked the importance of recognising the right to identity and reputation of children born to these unconventional unions.
The 1989 Convention, under Article 7(1), mandates the compulsory registration of the child’s birth and the child’s name soon after delivery. It also says that the child shall acquire a nationality and has the right to know the parents and to be cared for by them. However, the current birth registration forms require the father’s name for registering births, and the authority denies issuing birth certificates if the column remains unfilled. Moreover, the fear of mental and emotional harassment, torture and defamation also leads to the non-registration of births outside marriage. The alternative of registering births with pseudo- father names is also not uncommon in India. If the practice of registering birth with a pseudo-father’s name continues, it will subsequently create legal complexities in claiming the vested rights of the child in future.30 The UNICEF data on the increase in birth registration fails to account for this kind of pseudo-registration. It is highly surprising that no research study has been reported or conducted in this regard in India so far.
During the period from 1973 to 1990, various private members of the Indian Parliament independently introduced a bill in the Lok Sabha, which was popularly known as “Mothers’ Lineage Bill, [1990]”, with an objective to make the man-woman equality a reality inside the family and to liberate society from the obsolete practices associated with male dominance. The main purpose of the bill was to revisit the concept of illegitimacy by appealing for a reconsideration of illegitimacy rules and for considering mothers’ lineage for approving the births outside marriage. The aim and purpose of the bill was to incorporate the egalitarian principles of the Constitution into the personal laws, thereby elevating the social status of women and children. However, the Bill has not seen light until today31.
CONCLUSION
Given the changing trends in family structure, with increasing births outside wedlock, it is important that the status and identity rights of the child, as provided under various personal laws and civil laws, be revisited. Article 9(3) of the 1989 Convention mandates the state parties to respect “the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests”. The ‘erga omnes’ doctrine under international law imposes a duty on the state parties to fulfil their respective obligations under various international laws, for the benefit of persons under their jurisdiction.
In many Western countries, the concept of Illegitimacy now stands removed. In the last century itself, United Kingdom had reconsidered the traditional concept and notion of legitimacy in conferring equal status to children born to heterosexual relations32. Later, The Children Act, 1989, abolished the doctrine completely, calling it outmoded and discriminatory on the best interest of the child. The place where Victorian moral principles once ostracised birth outside wedlock, thus decorously summed up the evil and irrational outcomes of illegitimacy. Countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Scotland and many states of America, also equalised the birth status of children born to unconventional unions by calling off the discriminatory practices of illegitimacy.
Norway was the first country to rule out the concept of illegitimacy from its social laws, followed by Sweden and Denmark, during the early 1900s. The reforms initiated by Lord Castbergian to revive Norwegian social life, and the evolution of the Social Democratic Party, helped eradicate the social evil that prevailed at the time. From a fairly early period, Swedish law established the concept of Social Security officers for each child born out of wedlock, for their well-being and protection. It was the responsibility of these protection officers to find the ‘father’ of the children born outside wedlock. The Social Security laws also placed a responsibility on the relatives and family members of the woman and even extended the responsibility to the house maids, to help and assist the Social Security officers to identify the ‘preparator’ of such births.
The Roman moral precepts on illegitimacy had a remarkable shelf -life on its social institutions until recently, when the new regulations in Italy were enacted33, which came into force on 1 January 2014. The new regulations effectively removed all legal distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate children, as well as between adopted children. All references to illegitimacy have been removed from the Italian Civil Code since then.
Illegitimacy may be a socio-legal concept, rooted deeply in the sentiments of patriarchy, and it may not be possible to transform the social attitudes overnight. However, no evil can be removed from society without initiating the first leap towards legal recognition. Ensuring equal rights for children regardless of their birth is the need of the hour.
To conclude, lets reminiscence the great words of Dickens: “In the little world in which children have their existence, whosoever brings them up, there is nothing so finely perceived and so finely felt as injustice”34Therefore, let no child be abandoned and become destitute, on the reasons of loss, abstinence and fornication of the adults, for “mankind owes the child, the best it has to give”.35
*****
Footnotes
1. 6 National Law Library Roscoe Pound et al. eds. 138
2. Source; Roman Law-meaning illegitimate children born of a prostitute. The Roman law made distinction between illegitimates born of a concubine, and those born of a prostitute. The illegitimates born of a concubine were styled naturales, and those born of a prostitute were called spurii. The spurii had no legal rights of inheritance or to a support.https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/spurii/
3. Judith Evans Grubbs, “Illegitimacy and Inheritance Disputes in the Late Roman Empire”
4. A patriarchate is the office or jurisdiction of an ecclesiastical patriarch. Source http://www.dictionary.com/browse/patriarchate
5. https://www.britannica.com/topic/canon-law
6. John Witte, Jr, “The Sins of the Fathers; The Law and Theology of Illegitimacy Reconsidered”, Cambridge University Press, 2009
7. This legal position of non-inheritance lasted until the Family Law Reform Act of 1969 (Part II-Property Rights of Illegitimate Children)
8. John Duncan Martin Derrett “Essays in Classical and Modern Hindu Law: Anglo-Hindu legal problems”[vol.3] pp 91s (1977)
9. SukumariBhattacharji, Motherhood in Ancient India:Economic and Political Weekly,Vol. 25, No. 42/43 (Oct. 20-27, 1990), pp. WS50-WS57
10. LalaLajpat Rai “Europeanization and the Ancient Culture of India”,The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science Vol. 145, Part 2: India (Sep., 1929), pp. 188-195
11. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/132569/14/14_chapter%206.pdf
12. S. G. Vesey-Fitzgerald, Place of Hindu Law in Comparative Jurisprudence, 39 L. Q. Rev. 357, 371 (1923)
13. John Duncan Martin Derrett (1977) “Essays in Classical and Modern Hindu Law: Anglo-Hindu legal problems”[vol.3] pp 91s
14. MadhuKishwar,” Codified Hindu Law: Myth and Reality”.Economic and Political Weekly,Vol. 29, No. 33 (Aug. 13, 1994), pp. 2145-2161
15. Ibid
16. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 16 (1) – Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages.
17. THE DIVORCE ACT, 1869, section 21
18. The Special Marriage Act,1954, section 26
19. The local registrar shall issue birth certificate within five working days in favour of an adopted child on an application filed by the Specialised Adoption Agency or adoptive parents, incorporating the names of the adoptive parents as parents and the date of birth of the child as mentioned in the adoption order of the court, in accordance with circulars issued from time to time by the Registrar General of India.However Section 57 (3) of the JJ Act 2015, is silent on the status of child adopted by a single woman. http://cara.nic.in/Regulation/birth.html
20. “…… all children born after the date of the ceremony of marriage (whose names shall also be entered in the Marriage Certificate Book) shall in all respects be deemed to be and always to have been the legitimate children of their parents:….” Section 18: ‘The Special Marriage Act’, 1954.
21. Géraldine Van Bueren, Child rights in Europe: convergence and divergence in judicial protection Europeans and their rights, Council of Europe, 2007
22. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx
23. ibid
24. “The purposes include, among others, the ethical, social, and economic, objectives that law as a social institution must fulfil. If law has a purpose, and if any specific legal norm has its purpose, then interpretation has to be a tool for effectuating the law’s purpose.” Aharon Barak,“Hermeneutics and Constitutional Interpretation”, Yale Law School,Cardozo L. Rev. 767 1992 – 1993, p.769
25. FAO (OS) No. 44/2011 and CM 1795/2011; https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e0ef43607dba38 965ef8ca
26. ibid
27. Rohit Shekhar vs. Narayan Dutt Tiwari and another, 2012 (2) RCR (Civil) 1011, Delhi High Court
28. Shalu Nigam &Anr vs. The Regional Passport Officer & others, (Writ Petition (C) 155/2016 & CM APPLs. 684-685/2016)
29. Mrs. B.S.Deepa vs The Regional Passport Officer, (Writ Petition No.29105 of 2014)
30. Ibid
31. R. C. Bhardwaj, Legislation by Members in the Indian Parliament1990-2; Kusum, Rights and Status of Illegitimate Children, Journal of Indian Law Institute, Vol.20
32. The Family Law Reform Act, 1969
33. Legge 10 December 2012, n. 219
34. Dickens, Charles. Great Expectations. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1942. Print.
35. Declaration of the Rights of Child, 1924.